EC

$7.50--

AdAq-- the universe is defined as everything that exists. You are correct in saying everything that exists is finite. But, that does not negate somehow as you claim that the universe is eternal. Nor does it imply that the universe is "infinite", which is what I think you're trying to apply to your concept of god. The universe is both finite and unbounded in any dimention, either time or space. This is because the universe does not exist "in time" or "in space", these are relational concepts that can only exist between existents within the universe. By the way, I think you are still evading the questions involving your concept of god. Are you implying that since all finite beings must have a "cause" that your concept of god is "infinite"? If you are you should understand infinity is not really an existing thing and therefore nothing, even your concept of god, can logically be defined by it.

Corporations are privately owned by each stock holder, they are not public property. Police stations and other such places that are the result of a proper government are government property not "public" property.

Don't you see that you're making an unsupported statement that the Universe, existence as such, must be "caused". And then you arbitrarily attribute that cause to an arbitrary god without apparently noticing the contradiction. In other words, if everything supposedly needs a "first cause" as you assume, why doesn't your arbitrary concept of god need a cause himself to remove the supposed "infinite regress" you're so worried about? And if you answer that god does not need a "cause" because he simply is, why can't this also be true of existence, i.e., the universe itself. Why then can't you just say existence exists, and drop the unneeded arbitrary concept of god?

I heard this one recently and thought it was kind of funny: A chicken and an egg are in bed with each other late one night. The chicken takes a long drag on his cigarette and turns to the egg and says, "Well, I guess we finally answered that question."

Well. She didn't where he said she did. We can't have people mislabeling page numbers on this forum. Edited to correct spelling. By the way this was meant to be a joke, note the smiley.

No I read the whole Manifesto and some other snippets. And I just went to page 27 of VOS and your quote does not exist. While Miss Rand states in other places that only the trader principle is the appropriate mean of exchange between men, I don't think she ever made the statement you attribute to her.

Nice try at argument from intimidation fella. It's not that I can't pick apart what you said in your first post but that I choose not to, it's pointless. If you continue your study of Objectivism you will eventually understand why your statements are wrong. I will say this, though, all your arguments proceeded from the flawed premise that survival is the starting premise for Objectivism's ethics. This is false. It is actually man's life qua man. There is a big difference. Learn it. Understand it and your opinion of Objectivism will almost certainly improve. Also, before making allegations about someone's reading ability maybe you should go back and check the spelling and grammar in most of your posts, let alone some of the illogical statements you make. Don't think because I choose to hold back without making long posts that I don't have the ability to run intellectual circles around you at any time I so choose. I've read the Communist Manifesto and other snippets of Marx here and there.

What a revelation!

GWDS-- Do you smoke crack before you begin to read? To find any parallel WHATSOEVER between Objectivism and Communism you must have. I'll leave it to others who are more interested to pick your nonsense apart.

Does this mean you somehow "know" enough about Ayn Rand ( the person) to mock her? Also later in the post you say something like "I believe Objectivism to be true". My question is why do you just "beleive" it? Either you know something's true or you don't, belief doesn't exist. So what do know? And if you know nothing admit it and be quiet because I don't think anyone here really cares about you "beliefs".

Why should IKEA care at all what this guy thinks. If I was the owner of this company I would loudly and publically tell the guy to mind his own business. I might use stronger and more explicit words when I did, however.

For the lack of a person having a "god". I'm done with this rediculous line of questioning.

Cole-- here's a question to you: assuming the guy answers yes to this question what is the point in continuing the conversation with him? In others words, what value will you personally gain in debating someone that is such a messed up mental state that he "believes" or fools himself into thinking that he's "reasoning"(rationalization) the existence of a "supernatural" anything. I suppose maybe debating skills? Such a person should be recommended to seek the help of a mental health professional, not debate with Objectivsts.

See you know you are a "good" Objectivist when you can predict(postdict?) essentially what Ayn Rand would say without ever reading anything about a certain subject like I did in an earlier post. I'll pat myself on the back here.

I think its funny(maybe witty's a better word) to see a rational person rip an irrational person's non-sense to pieces and do it with attitude, or "insensitivity" as I've seen it described in another thread. But that's just me.

Go back and look at my edit to my last post. Godless is an adjective like big or small. It is the measurement. It means not possessing the attribute of an arbitrary god(s).

No. just the religous concept of god(s). Godless is just an adjective decribing people who accept this fact. god(arbitrary supernatural being) -less(not possessing previous attribute) Therefore godless is an adjective meaning not possessing the attribute of an arbitrary supernatural being. Edited to add second paragragh.

The arbitrary.

I would recommend you read the Finite and Unbounded Universe thread and the included essay by forum member Alex. It decribes what I said much better than I possibly can. Beware, the thread got messy though, and I would just recommend his essay on the subject primarily. Not long ago my thinking was similar to what yours was in your post I responded to, but the essay if read carefully will eliminate the errors that leads to that thinking. The short answer is that "unbounded" is the term you are looking for. By the way welcome to the forum.

Nope. Morality is an abstract concept. Planes, trains, and automobiles are physical existents. But both exist in reality. And an abstract concept still has its referent in metaphysical reality, as a code for how a man must act to preserve his greatest value, his life.

Simple. One may simply disregard the arbitrary, in this case the religous concept of god(s), without wasting any time thinking about it. See one of the threads on Atheism or consult OPAR on why this is so. Sinse Objectivists are by this course of reasoning Atheists the term godless as an adjective for Objectivists duly follows.

Nothing is "entitled". Is JMeganSnow supposed to be "sensitive"? Also why don't you drop the act with the fancy wording, nobody's impressed with it or your implied argument from intimidation. Edited to correct spelling and to make the last sentence make sense(must've typed too fast).

I think the case of a severly retarded man's mental state is analagous to the case of a baby or small child, so it would be wrong to beat him for the same reason it is wrong to beat a baby or small child.

I just wanted to state that this is a negation of physical reality, of existence itself, as such. It is also primacy of conciousness at its worst. I don't know if I have anything more to say to someone who explicitly denies existence.